Van Jones Resigns; Left To Hang By Obama For Cursing Republicans And Signing 9/11 Truth Statement?


Rob Kall

Van Jones called Republicans what most of the people who voted for Obama call them. And he signed a statement calling for further inquiry and explanation of 9/11-- the original 9/11 truth document. Was he left hanging by the Obama Administration for doing what scores of millions of Americans would also do?

Van Jones has been the target of a vicious smear campaign for weeks. Tonight, he resigned his position as special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Apparently, the White House and president Obama did not stand behind Jones, one of the most respected leaders in the ecological movement. The Washington Post reported,

'White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday that Jones "continues to work for the administration" -- but he did not state that the adviser enjoys the full support of President Obama, instead referring all questions to the environmental council where he worked, signaling the resignation was imminent.'

Jones recently issued two apologies. One was for calling Republicans "assholes." The other was for signing a statement in 2004 supporting a call for further investigation of 9/11, which suggested that the Government might have had a role in the 911 attack. The original document can be found here, with Van Jones the 46th signatory (and this writer was the 47th.) Ironically, one of the most vocal "birthers, who question the validity of Obama's birth certificate, Phillip J. Berg, was also a signatory of the same statement, 8th on the list.

This resignation will probably seen as a double victory for Glenn Beck and his fans. Beck mounted a toxic attack campaign against Jones, with multiple lies and false accusations cast against Jones. I say a double victory because the right wing echo chamber, including many members of Congress played a role in the attempt to destroy this man's reputation.

I've followed Van Jones ascent for a number of years. He's been featured on the covers of countless magazine covers as a man of sparkling vision and integrity. He exudes it when you meet him. There's something wrong with the Obama administration's failure to stand behind him.

Jones issued a statement just after midnight, early on September 6th, stating,

"I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today. On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

Perhaps it wouldn't have come to this if the Obama administration had made a clear statement backing Jones. Instead, Glenn Beck and the right wing get to claim a major victory in taking out a rising progressive star. Let's be clear. This was not handled right by the White House. It is one more nail in the coffin of the relationship between the Obama administration and the left-- the progressives who handed Obama and the Democratic Congress their victory in 2008.

I say that this is a double victory because the Obama White House response will do damage to the relationship of the White House and perhaps the Democratic Party with progressives, 9/11 Truthers and perhaps all of the people who still question the report and findings of the 9/11 commission. Multiple polls have indicated that over 40% of respondents feel that questions were unanswered.

Over the past few weeks, Glenn Beck repeatedly hammered false claims that Jones was a "Czar"-- a term that some media people had applied to him, and that he was a communist. All across America, Beck listeners were citing this at the town halls of the August congressional break.

With the taste of fresh blood, one has to ask, who will Beck and his right wing dogs go after next, now that they know Obama and his team will leave them hanging?


If Van Jones had stuck to his guns and simply stated that he supports the 911 family members in their attempt to find out what happened to their loved ones he would have gone down in history as an American hero. He would have still had to resign, but at least he would have done so with his integrity intact.

I understand why he decided to back-peddle. No doubt he justified it to himself on the same basis as countless other people in the public eye, whether Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky -- 911 truth must be sacrificed for the "greater good" -- ie if my body of work is to be preserved, I cannot allow my reputation to be destroyed. I cannot be labeled a "conspiracy theorist".

The problem is that the truth always outs, eventually. The more you play politics, the less honorable you become. Truth, justice, integrity, these concepts are inextricably linked. As the Bard said, "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Just like...

I wished Ron Paul did during the debates when he was asked about 9/11.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Well spoken

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." — George Orwell


"Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." — George Orwell

Show "Let me repeat again what I said on Van Jones and Fox News!" by rschop

If you think "Al-Qaeda" was

If you think "Al-Qaeda" was responsible for 911 you clearly haven't done your homework. Come back after you've done some research.

Show "Reply, if you thinkk al Qaead was ...." by rschop

Ok. I re-read it.

You keep going on about "Al-Qaeda" as if it's some sort of organization. In fact, there is no evidence of any organization known as "Al-Qaeda". It's a figment of your imagination. The 1993 bombing was masterminded by an FBI informant. The bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were supposedly masterminded by Al Mohammed, another informant.

Bin Laden denied any involvement in the 911 attacks until unconvincing doppelgangers began appearing on video tape.

"Al-Qaeda" is clearly a pseudo-gang. This is a common technique of intelligence agencies. The US special forces counter-insurgency manuals explains:

"Alternative intelligence-gathering techniques and sources, such as doppelganger or pseudo operations, can be tried and used when it is hard to obtain information from the civilian populace. These pseudo units are usually made up of ex-guerrilla and/or security force personnel posing as insurgents."

The "Al-Qaeda terrorists" you claim carried out 911 could not have disintegrated Flight 93, nor piloted 77 into the Pentagon, nor imploded Building 7, the most obvious controlled demolition in the history of mankind.

Your claim that "no evidence" has emerged in the past "8 years" suggesting controlled demolition is absurd on its face. I could go on, but really you should be acquainted with this information by now, which is why I suggested doing some homework. I don't deny that a few patsies may have been involved, but even on this point there is no evidence except for some laughable "left-behind" material such as Atta's Will and a fire-proof passport.

Show "Reply, if you thinkk al Qaead was ...." by rschop

For what it's worth...

This is rschop's statement on his user profile:

I found out about about the attack that was to take place on 9/11 on February 11, 2001. This information has already been given to the FBI, on 7 occasions, the Joint Inquiry Committe of the House and the Senate investigating 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission. My focus to get the American people to learn the whole story of 9/11.

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I saw that and thought, what

I saw that and thought, what the hell. That's his punchline but he hasn't filled in the rest. Tread lightly.

rschop's information on web site

Let me list a few more details that are on my web site you might have missed:

This book, “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” is an account of how I found out about the attacks on 9/11 on February 11, 2001 on a trip out to New York from San Francisco. The information I was able to put together was as follows:

The al Qaeda terrorists were planning an enormous terrorist attack on the US aimed at destroying the World Trade Center Towers.

The al Qaeda terrorists were going to hijack four large aircraft in midair departing from eastern airports.

The planes would be of type 767 and 757.

They would use four to five al Qaeda terrorists per plane using concealed four inch knives as weapons, to hijack these planes.

They would fly these hijacked aircraft to the sides World Trade Center Towers.

The terrorists would be in place and ready to carry out this attack by September 1, 2001, and would carry out this attack somewhere between September 1, actually September 4, and September 14, 2001.

On February 14, 2001, I stood in front of these buildings to see if I could possible envision them continuing to stand after sustaining collisions from large commercial aircraft. I quickly concluded they would in almost all certainly collapse. Both the open floor plan combined with the estimated 100,000 pounds of aviation fuel in each plane was going to cause these structures to collapse.

On September 8, 2001, I went through Logan airport to see if I could spot the al Qaeda terrorists who were going to hijack these airplanes in front of the airport departure security points surveying the security procedures to find out how they could get their weapons, the four inch knives through security without alerting security personnel. I apparently missed seeing them by just a few hours.

On September 11, 2001 after the attack, I immediately contacted the FBI field office in Boston and gave them this information. Not only myself but almost every single person in my company was aware of this attack. Not only were they told about this attack, but I had called a special meeting at my company in June 2001 to alert everyone on how to avoid flying on any aircraft that might have these terrorists on board when we were all flying out to Las Vegas from San Francisco to exhibit my companies EDA software at the DAC conference in the second week of June.

When I was not re-contacted by Boston FBI, after I retuned back to San Francisco I gave this information to the FBI field office in San Francisco, and in to the field office San Jose.

When the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and the Senate had their investigation of 9/11, I gave them this information and the FBI reports on how I had known about the events on 9/11, to one of their investigators a Michael Jackson, and to Rick Cinquegrana, who at one time was in charge of this investigation.

On April 13-14, 2004 I gave this information to the 9/11 Commission.

After listing to the testimony of George Tenet on April 14, 2004 and still unable to figure out why they could not have figured this out prior to 9/11, and prevent these attacks, I went back to research all of the information from these investigations to find the truth behind why they did not prevent these attacks. I also started to put this into a book on this research. It was not until late July of this year, 2006 that I was able to finally find the missing pieces I had been looking for and finally understand what went so terribly wrong, what was the real reason that 3000 people were killed in a entirely preventable attack on 9/11.

Both San Jose FBI field office FBI and the deputy to Eleanor Hill, the staff director of the 9/11 Inquiry investigation, Rick Cinquegrana , in a written email said I should feel I was to blame for not preventing the 9/11 attacks. The FBI said they would not have used my information in February 2001 since I did not have the fight numbers or the names of the terrorists, the Joint Inquiry people said they felt that the FBI had as much information as I had and they did not even use the information they had to prevent these attacks.

I told the people on the Joint Inquiry Committee that there was in fact an completely systematic process where you could go from the actual material the al Qaeda terrorists had written to virtually every single detail of the attacks on 9/11 even to estimating the timing of this attack to within +/- one week in September 2001. In fact I had found that there were 3-4 ways you could estimate the timing of this attack to +/- one week from just publically available information.

In the end it was almost too simple to figure out what the al Qaeda terrorists were up to, they had made their intentions well known with material they themselves had published worldwide. They did not try hide a thing, they let everyone know exactly what their intentions were. All you had to do was to fill in between the lines of the material they had written. The hard part was figuring out what could you do with this information once you had it. I was convinced that the FBI, the only organization set up to deal with this type of information was going to do nothing prior to that attack on 9/11, since I had no real physical evidence and the FBI was caught in catch 22 situation, no proof no investigation and no investigation no proof.

It was only several years after the attacks on 9/11, after I was doing research on this book, that I uncovered information that indicated that agents at FBI HQ working with and under the control of the CIA had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Robert Schopmeyer/Author Prior Knowledge of 9/11

I see you cross-post

your ridiculous disinformation. What a coincidence that you should come here amplifying the Van Jones hit job with your incendiary lies, just before 9/11. How obvious.

Where would you like to recant your lies about the research by Jones/Harrit et. al.? Here, or there?

Mainstream Media scrutiny? You mean the same mainstream media "scrutiny" that gave us the Iraq fiasco? The same mainstream media "scrutiny" of the Martin Luther King trial with William Pepper? The incubator baby hoax? The Bosnian concentration camp hoax? Election fraud? Watergate? JFK? RFK? Iran-Contra? Gladio? The Gulf of Tonkin?

Let me tell you something about the mainstream media. It's is a corporate sponsored, CIA infested band of sniveling cowards. Don't take MY word for it, take Carl Bernstein's.

Your attempts to divide and incense the regulars are well timed but exceedingly transparent and pathetic. I do not care for, nor do I accept your sudden disinformation campaign built on the Van Jones scandal. You want to defame the work of the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies? Bring it on. These people have done more for truth and have more integrity, sincerity and courage than you'll ever have.

There are many different

There are many different lines of evidence pointing to government complicity, and all avenues of discovery should be encouraged.

And - if you know how to make paint chips that explode, release a bunch of heat, and form iron-rich spheres when you put them in a differential scanning calorimeter, would you let me know, please? Thanks!


This is the first really anti-9/11 truth effort of the new administration. I can't help but think there is more to this than them not having vet him at all . . . .

Rest of my comment is already here.


Are you saying you're number 36 on the petition? Because I looked at the petition and didn't see your name anywhere.
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

You are correct.

I mistakingly thought he meant he was #47 on this. I will take down my mistaken comment.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Most of Obama's left 'Opposition' is coopted by him

I'd been wondering why Obama seemed to have gotten a complete free pass not just on his war-making, but even on things like his backstabbing of the American public via his deal with Tauzin of Big Pharma.

From firedoglake

Soon after the election, the Administration began corralling the big liberal DC interest groups into a variety of organizations and communication networks through which they telegraphed their wishes -- into a virtual veal pen. The 8:45 am morning call co-hosted by the "liberal" Center for American Progress, Unity 09, and Common Purpose are just a few of the overt ways that the White House controls its left flank and maintains discipline.

My own experience with the Veal Pen came indirectly, when some of them had the temerity to launch a campaign against Blue Dogs. They were rebuked and humiliated in front of their peers as a lesson to them all at a Common Purpose meeting, which is run by lobbyist Erik Smith. White House communications director Ellen Moran attends. It isn't an arms-length relationship between these groups and the administration.

A few weeks ago, Rahm Emanuel showed up at a Common Purpose meeting and called these liberal groups "fucking stupid" for going after Blue Dogs on health care and ordered them not to do so any more. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have.

These organizations may kid themselves that they're doing no harm, but that's not true. They are the institutional liberal validators who telegraph to liberals that there are problems, that things are happening that are not good for them. They are trusted to decode the byzantine rituals of government and let the public know when their interests are not being served, that it's time to pay attention and start making a racket. When they fail to perform that task, the public is left with a vague feeling of anxiety, intuitively understanding that something is wrong but not knowing who or what to blame.

When the White House met with bankers after the AIG scandal and they said they didn't want to be criticized for getting huge bonuses paid for by taxpayers, the White House complied and "cooled their rhetoric." The President told the public that Timothy Geithner had been instructed to do everything in his power to claw back those bonuses, and the House passed a bill doing just that. But it died in the Senate.

You remember all those campaigns by the unions, by the online groups, by liberal economics and finance organizations pushing the Senate to take it up?

Yeah, me either.

Which means that the teabaggers were in perfect position to harvest all of the discontent over the bank bailout, and no coherent liberal critique was offered. I heard it over and over again -- if you wanted to criticize the White House on financial issues, your institutional funding would dry up instantly. The Obama campaign successfully telegraphed to donors that they should cut off Fund for America, which famously led to its demise. It wasn't the last time something like that happened -- just ask those who were receiving institutional money who criticized the White House and saw their funding cut, at the specific request of liberal institutional leaders who now principally occupy their time by brown nosing friends and former co-workers in the White House.

(emphasis mine)

Of course, if Obama's left 'opposition' will do anything he asks them to, and if that includes throwing Jones under the bus, so be it.

While Obama's job approval ratings amongst independents has dropped precipitously, to about 50%, it is still about 80% approval by Democrats. Now we know why. They still don't know how much Obama is like the 3rd term of Bush!